Posted
by
Unknown Lameron Wednesday February 20, 2013 @10:32AM
from the protected-political-speech dept.

New submitter BetterThanCaesar writes "The Swedish Pirate Party and their ISP Serious Tubes have received a letter from 'The Rights Alliance' (formerly Antipiratbyrån, The Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), demanding they cease supplying Internet access to The Pirate Bay. Referring to the final sentence on the four Pirate Bay profiles, they threaten with legal action if access is not removed by February 26. On her blog, party leader Anna Troberg calls the letter 'extortion,' pointing out that (translated from Swedish) '[i]t is not illegal to provide The Pirate Bay with Internet access. There is no list of illegal sites that ISPs cannot provide access to.' (google translation to English)."
The letter sent (in Swedish). Update: 02/20 14:58 GMT by U L: richie2000 notes that hosting isn't quite right; they're just routing traffic to TPB: "We're not hosting TPB, we're just routing traffic to them. Just like an ISP. Serious Tubes routes traffic to the Pirate Party, so they're even more removed. But, last night, Portlane, one of the ISPs that routes traffic to Serious Tubes, was pressured into cutting their transit to ST, even if they were just a provider to a provider to a provider to TPB."

Actually it's not too bad an argument. The purpose here is not to infringe copyright - that's just a side effect - but to make a political statement. It's a protest against copyright, and the main thing they get out of it is political capital.

I thought it was because political parties are granted certain immunity in order to ensure free and uncensored debate. We have a similar thing in the UK where a politician can say anything in parliament and can't be sued for libel or guilty of breaking an injunction.

It's not an out and out nullification, but it's an argument. Similar to the draft card burning opposition to the Vietnam War. There is little justification for robbing banks within the law, but protesting perceived infringement of free speech by repeating that "speech" is a well established political tactic.

I agree it's a rough hiring process but nobody said it would be easy. The good thing about western democracy is that you're less likely to be assassinated or tortured for your political views than elsewhere. The problem with all revolutions is that they don't remove the establishment, they become it. Kinda sad to say but the current (western) establishment is quite likely "as good as it gets" by historical standards.

We're not hosting TPB, we're just routing traffic to them. Just like an ISP. Serious Tubes routes traffic to the Pirate Party, so they're even more removed. But, last night, Portlane, one of the ISPs that routes traffic to Serious Tubes, was pressured into cutting their transit to ST, even if they were just a provider to a provider to a provider to TPB.

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?

If that's how it is, then your brother shouldn't make the movie or novel. Your brothe

> If I go pick up all the trash along a road, should I have the right to sue the city for the work I did without compensation? When did they get the right to have a clean street without contributing anything to me or society for having made it happen?

Except that city can not prevents itself from volunteer helping out.

Leech has distinct option of not having chain of actions that lead to him having downloaded and enjoyed something.

Did I force the artist to publish anything? I don't think so. That's the choice the artist has. Publish and be pirated, or don't publish and keep things to yourself.

I'm perfectly happy to find that only artists who are happy to work in an environment where they don't need control over my stuff and the ability to censor people in order to make money are the only artists who's stuff is available. In fact, I would be overjoyed if all the artists who want to tell me how to use my own stuff or control who's allo

Nope. But clearly (yes, that's the sign for impending sarcasm) all shop owners who've suffered robberies should have the right to sue the local councils who maintain the roads that the get-away cars drive on.

for as long as there has been law, a key tenet has been that intent matters. this is the difference between murder and and a regrettable accident.

your applying of a mechanistic rule "link, therefore guilty or innocent" is naive and excludes that intelligent people can judiciously come to a reasonable understanding of what the intent of any given action is.

and this is the problem on slashdot - you think that law and policy is a series of mechanistic rules - like computer code. but it's not and it shouldn't be for any number of good reasons, not the least of which is that it simply won't work.

but you know - mark me a 'troll' - go on - call any reasoned disagreement as 'flamebait.' i've been on slashdot long enough to know the drill.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841

by Thomas Babington Macaulay

On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.

On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.

Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.

The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.

Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honourable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House.

I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. For, even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor. Few, I apprehend, even of those who have studied in the most mystical and sentimental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any human code.

If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any connected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's personal property was secured to his family; and it was only of the residue that he could dispose by will. Now he can dispose of the whole by will: but you limited his po

Whackjob conspiracy theories aside, your implication that every provider in the chain of custody leading to TBP should be held accountable is completely untenable. Since that includes the ISP which provides service to your brother, by which he initially transmitted his movie or novel, your brother will no longer have access. In fact, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, since your brother facilitated the actions of TPB by providing content, in exactly the same way that ISP provided bandwidth,

1. I made clear that my 'wackjob conspiracy theory' was tongue in cheek.2. your 'chain' argument is nonsense. see my response to 'RaceProUK'

law and policy does not work by slippery slope reasoning or by rigid application of principles, old testament style. until you understand this "law and policy for beginners" fact, you simply do not engage the discussion meaningfully.

We think it's wrong for private companies to spy on your Internet traffic and that copyright infringement should not render prison sentences. From this follows that it becomes impossible to enforce the copyright monopoly unless of course someone starts copying to sell - it's always much easier to follow the money. The obvious corollary to this is of course that it becomes legal to download songs and movies off the Internet. Like it already is in Spain, for example. And somehow, the Spanish movie industry flourishes. Coincidentally, a continued rise in file-sharing happens to correspond to increased sales of music and film in Sweden while movie theatres scored yet another record year. Obviously, they still get paid so your basic premise is flawed.

So, please tell me why we would give up our civil liberties because Hollywood wants to control how and when we watch movies?

So, please tell me why we would give up our civil liberties because Hollywood wants to control how and when we watch movies?

The point you're completely ignoring is that you can always make the decision to simply not consume the content. I agree that the penalties far outweigh the offenses, and that copyright (and patent) laws are in dire need of reform... but that does not mean I advocate consuming the content. Whether the rights holder is a small individual eating scraps out of the trash can or a 'big bad' corporation with a golden buffet is not relevant, you're still not entitled to the content.

The point you are ignoring is that it does not matter if I "consume the content" or not. If you want to let corporations filter your Internet, you are well and truly fucked, regardless if you "consume the content" or not. Or do you just assume that the RIAA won't abuse their powers once they get them?

Well, here's a newsflash - They already are. they have sent their extortion letters to infants, dead people and the blind. They don't give a shit if you "consume their content" or not, as long as you pay up and

Abolishing slavery put a lot of people out of business too. I don't weep for them, nor will I weep for anyone put out of business by the abolition of copyright. Profit is not more important than civil rights.

Movies are not an essential commodity, but the restrictions the corporations want to impose upon people through their lobbies in order to be able to control their distributions are in blatant violation of human rights.

What matters is not if piracy is right or wrong, but if we should allow our rights to evaporate because big corporations want ridiculous powers in order to police their anachronistic rights.

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?

I can't speak for him, but I, particularly, have nothing agains that sort of distribution. For different reasons, though. Movies and novels aren't necessary. They're either entertainment or propaganda (by that I merely mean something that conveys a political message or social commentary). In the first case, it should be relegated to hobbyists, partly because I think profit is a lousy motive for quality writing (see: Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer, a bunch of other crap) and partly because the Shire is a very co

Meyer wasn't just writing for profit. She has a personal investment: Her writing is an expression of her social and religious beliefs, and an allegorical argument for them. That doesn't make her a good writer, in part because her beliefs (That the rightful place of a woman is in the kitchen, doing as she is told by her male protector) are silly. But you can't fairly accuse her of being just in it for the money.

Dan Brown you can have though. That guy just makes conspiracy crap up because he knows it'll sell.

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?

Yes, exactly. Bits on a disk are not scarce. Hardware is scarce. The two are entire

(Sweedish) Pirate party is founded to get good publicity for business and to ensure it stays profitable and unhindered.

That business is basically making money of displaying advertizements (along with doing things like attempting users to download browser toolbar and other things that freedom loving geeks shound not event consider) when people are searching its index which is nearly 100% composed of pirated material. Should have there been "no more downloads of pirated conte

That business is basically making money of displaying advertizements (along with doing things like attempting users to download browser toolbar and other things that freedom loving geeks shound not event consider) when people are searching its index which is nearly 100% composed of pirated material.

There is absolutely no pirated content on the Pirate Bay servers. What they have is a link to other people's servers. If you want to stop online piracy, you need to follow the trail to the seeders, not to the people who tell you where the seeders are. The one that makes/uploads the torrent file is the guilty party.

because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?

Tell us about this computer of mine. Do I own the hard disk? If I own the hard disk, can I use it how I see fit? Can I arrange the bit patterns in any way that I want? If I own it, I surely can.

Now, then, it sounds like you'd like to use an armed gang to prevent me from arranging the bit pattern on my hard drive in a way that replicates a bit pattern that your bother came up with. In my country (the US), as an example, you'd like to use that armed gang to prevent 300 million people from using their property in that way, if they so choose.

You either have to make an argument that I don't own my hard drive but that your bother does own his bit pattern (that imaginary property is superior to real property, abrogating the entire basis for Western civilization) or you have to claim that you'll willing to take away the property rights of hundreds of millions of people to pad the business plan of one man. Because if real property rights don't exit, surely imaginary ones don't either.

Clearly it's wrong. Find a better business model (I suggest Creator Endorsed [questioncopyright.org] as a morally sound option) but whether you personally know of a sound business plan that will allow your brother to make money on that work or not doesn't justify taking away the property rights of millions or billions of people by force for his private benefit.

You either have to make an argument that I don't own my hard drive but that your bother does own his bit pattern (that imaginary property is superior to real property, abrogating the entire basis for Western civilization)

You're a bit high on the hyperbole, private property is not a total and absolute right. The government can and will come in and condemn the building if it's not up to spec and in general there's a ton of laws that apply to what, when and how you care to use your private property to play a drum solo at 3AM. Even if you've done nothing to upset the neighbors they'll still come and arrest you for growing pot in the basement, private property or not. It's not exactly the equivalent of a total ban on gardening o

So what, are you going to start suing private toll road owners because sometimes people traffic stolen merchandise through them?

Get real man, this isn't about stealing or copyright infringement. It's about an industry that has been violating our basic human rights, extorting people and artists, and stagnating technological process through litigation.

You see; Mozart, Beethoven, Dante Aguilleri, Luis de Camoes, Virgil, Bach, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shakespeare, not to mention the obvious and all the plastic artists who still now-a-days are not able to sell copies of their labour, never survived by making something, copying basically for free, and selling it.

Art has a whole survived quite well for countless generations without copyright profits, in fact - in my opinion - it survived better than these days, where any mediocre writer can make a mediocre job and by luck/marketing for idiot people have their mediocre piece shoved down our throats everywhere we deem to look.

A truly good artist should make art for the sake of art, not for the sake of profit or even to earn a living. Those are the works that will be remembered in 1000 years, and not some Twilight crap. If your brother only wants a job to gain some money, there are lots of opportunities out there that don't need art to suffer for it.

One that will really bake your noodle is: Why the fuck are taxpayers being forced to pay some guy to stick a crucifix inside of a jar full of piss?

I'm not religious so the message of the art doesn't bother me, but...damn. It's not even art that I'm interested in, yet I have to contribute to it anyways. This is what us libertarians complain about when it comes to wasteful spending, but it takes a religious uproar to bring it to the forefront.

I'm somewhat teared apart on this. On the one hand, it is great that they fight against this "Right Alliance". On the other hand, it appears quite foolish, considering the harsh sentences the TPB founders have received (we were told at that time, that what PirateBay does would be legal under swedish law, still they got very stiff sentences).

Kudos to them to stand up against this pressure, but I absolutely hope that none of them will have to face similar hard problems and sentences. And I hope that the pirate party will not get damage from this.

we were told at that time, that what PirateBay does would be legal under swedish law, still they got very stiff sentences

In all fairness it never reached the Supreme Court, possibly the appeal were denied due to political pressure as a Supreme Court ruling done in the spirit of law would not have fallen well with the USA. Remember that the US went to such lengths as threatening with trade sanctions in order to satisfy the MAFIAA?

In the letter references are made to 2 court rulings made in a lower court and used to claim that the ISP is committing an illegal act, if I recall correctly both these cases were appealed to the Swedish equivalent of the Supreme Court but never got that far.

With a bit of luck The Pirate Party stand their ground and this will reach the Supreme Court and finally a precedent will be set as should have been done years ago when the TPB founders were at trial.

In my belief the reason that it never reached the Supreme Court is that any ruling based on Swedish law would have ruled in favor of TPB, so the Swedish Supreme Court took the easy way out by not taking up the case. As by taking up the case the Supreme Court would have been faced with:

1. Setting a precedent that would not go down well with the political powers by ruling according to the spirit of the law. Remember that the US did threaten with embargo in order to strongarm Sweden into acting in the interests of the MAFIAA. So there were a lot of political interests in the outcome of the TPB case.

Or

2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.

2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.

The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'. While courts can interprate the law, they cannot operate outside of it or even create law. That is for Parliament to do. The Courts job is to apply the law.

By holding to that definition, you reject the rule of law in favor of the rule of man. Clearly the Supreme Court is made of fallible humans, and they have made errors in the past. Why even have a Constitution if you believe that what 9 people in robes say about it is more important than what it actually says?

Except that their precedent then *becomes* the law. They still can't contradict it. It's a logical impossibility. What they can do is effectively retroactively change the meaning of a law, and if they do so in a way too blatant it'll annoy the legislators enough that they'll repeal or revise the law and try again.

[Courts can] retroactively change the meaning of a law, and if they do so in a way too blatant it'll annoy the legislators enough

Despite Wickard v. Filburn being what strict constructionists have called a blatant misinterpretation of the scope of "commerce among the several states" under the U.S. Constitution, it still hasn't annoyed legislators.

Here's my translation of the letter they sent them. Anything in []'s are my own additions.

Participation in copyright infringement

The Rights Alliance represent among others Noble Entertainment, Nordic Film and SF [Swedish Film], companies which hold the copyright to many Swedish movies that without permission are made available to the public through the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party and Serious Tubes provide internet access to the Pirate Bay.

In February 2012 the Supreme Court decided to not allow an appeal in the so called Pirate Bay case. Through that decision it was established that not only those who administrate an illegal file sharing service but also those that provide internet access to such an illegal service make themselves guilty of a crime. Despite the fact that the Court has made this clear you continue to do so [provide the internet access]. Since all legal avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left for us to do is request that you cease providing internet access to the Pirate Bay

Through this letter you are formally informed that infringement of rights that are protected by copy right law are occurring through the Pirate Bay and that you participate in these infringements by providing internet access to the Pirate Bay.

Copyright law provides that an injunction can be imposed on those that participate in copyright infringement, fines being the consequence of non-compliance. Liability for damages for any harm caused is also established. These rules apply to among others juridical persons [companies], including non-profit/charitable organisations like the Pirate Bay and Serious Tubes, their board of directors and other associates.

According to copy right law, participating in copyright infringement is extensive. Four people have been handed prison terms and significant damages for participation in copyright infringement for, inter alia [among other things], participation in the running of and the supply of broadband internet/internet access to the Pirate Bay. Furthermore, Svea Hovratt [the Court of Appeal, inferior only to the Supreme Court] have forbidden two companies with threats of fines of 500000 SEK (US$ 80000; £52000) from in the first case supplying internet access to Pirate Bay and in the second case from providing internet access to a tracker that was used for illegal file sharing (Svea Hovratt Case No. Ö 7131-09, Case No. Ö 8873-09 and Case No. Ö 10146-09. Furthermore, Stockholm District Court established by judgment of the 16th of October 2012 the injunctions established by Svea Hovratt in Svea Hovratt Case No’s Ö 7131-09 and 8873-09 (Stockholm District Court Case No. T 7540-09 and Case No. T 11712-09.

With this as a background the copyright holders that we represent request that the Pirate Party and Serious Tubes immediately cease supplying internet access to the Pirate Bay. If notification of having done so has not been received by latest the 26th of February 2013 the Rights Alliance will pursue legal action against you without further communications.

If you would like more information you are welcome to contact us.

Kind regards,

Sara LindbackThe Rights Alliance.

-------

They're using scare tactics. They are referring to cases and trying to make it look like those cases have established that what they are doing is illegal by analogy, but I seriously doubt any Court would entertain that notion and I would expect that they would try any case fully on its merits. I think that becomes even more apparent when they threaten to go after the board of directors personally and threaten that they can be held liable for damages for the copyright infringement in personam [out of their own pockets].

Would these be the same ultra-wealthy industrialists who own gun & ammo manufacturers and back the NRA, or the ones who were buddies with the Bush administration that did jack shit to keep you from your highly inefficient sandblasters for armored vehicles?

Just a dead end republican taking point.
More guns = more dead people always has always will.
That is why they are so popular with soldiers.
Lucky Civilians and soldiers kill them self with them more than anyone else.
The only bright spot of guns.

To be fair, it needs to be an option of last resort when you're faced with total financial obliteration for doing something that, while completely legal, an entity with large sums of money dislikes. The reasons that Colt's revolver was labeled "the great equalizer" are still evident today, even if we find the implications unpalatable. The modern legal system in most developed countries generally favors the clown with the deepest pockets, and can be a life-ruining experience for the average citizen; in those instances, "just shoot the fucker" may be the only recourse available to said citizen, and even the possibility of that can have far-reaching effects on the willingness of those with deep pockets to pursue matters to the point of financial ruin.

The modern legal system in most developed countries generally favors the clown with the deepest pockets, and can be a life-ruining experience for the average citizen...

I think that each party should put whatever they wish to spend on legal counsel into a pot that gets divided equally between the parties in the dispute. The lawyers would then get paid out of that pot. That way nobody has pockets that are any deeper than anyone else's.

That's a nice thought, but unfortunately completely unrealistic and still favouring the clown with the deepest pocket. Let's be honest - the poor Joe Average wouldn't put a penny in the pot. Only then, a large corporation would have a guy with legal training on some weird position, like "Legal Operations Officer" to avoid chipping into the pot as well. With no money in the pot, the court could decide to let the parties represent themselves.

True, but if they don't want to claim any legal costs then they also should be barred from compensation from those costs. I think it's far more likely that they'll bankroll your lawyer too, but it will be padded to the damages they ask for. Remember that this also means that if a nutcase sues you and you want a real lawyer to defend you so nothing crazy happens, you'd end up paying for a lawyer for the nutcase as well. It'd be another incentive to legal trolling and ambulance chasers.

Honestly, I can see there's an argument for guns to protect from an oppressive government, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.

What I find daft is the extremes some people take it to. Using a gun to oppose what is largely a popular law is suggesting that people with guns are more important than the will of the people. The reason copyright isn't likely to change is that most people think that the media cartels deserve it.This is not something that's being imposed by an oppressive government but by the po

This. What people who are opposed to gun control routinely forget in their fantasy world where they are facing off against an oppressive government with their firearms is that their government, in most of the western world, was elected by the people. And there are a large amount of people who disagree with them and who will fight them if they try to strike back against the government. This is not called fighting against tyranny...this is called a civil war.

The benefit would be much quicker dispute resolution and much lower cost to the tax-payer. Also, each persons power is now a function of their wealth and their number of lives (usually 1). While still unbalanced, the playing field is much closer to level and things become quite a bit more democratic.

Don't get me wrong, it's an utterly monstrous and uncivilised notion, but it may well be a step up from the current system.

Show me a singe gun-nut that actually stood up against the government when they removed the rights of the people instead of cheering them on and I might be with you on that.

Spend a little time catching up on modern events, I can think of a half dozen cases which made national and international news in the US since the early 90's. I'd post details, but it will do you far more good to do the research yourself.

The first item of business when taking over a region is to disarm the population. If guns were really such a non-issue in terms of standing up to a government, they wouldn't waste their time.

Only if you think you opinion outweighs those of others (it doesn't), if your ideas are too stupid/unpopular to start your own political party (likely), if you're too lazy to do so (more likely) or if you're just using it as an excuse to own a gun (this).

Could you link to the RFC that specifies the IP via Bullets protocol? Or are you saying these troubles would go away if people started shooting government officials? Because yeah, that'd totally be the appropriate response and not make anything worse.

The name is a bad use of irony. It's as if governments outlawed innocent persuasion, calling all acts of persuasion "extortion" so you founded an "Extortion Party" to defy the new anti-speech laws. Yeah, it might be kind of dumb from some PoVs, or rather, it might be such that unusually dumb people aren't able to get the joke. Jokes are bad in the mainstream; people are too humorless/stupid.